The fourth National Innovation Policy Forum (NIPF) hosted by Cooperative Research Australia is this coming Monday 3 November 2025 in Canberra—a gathering that brings together leaders across government, business and research to explore how Australia can harness its innovation ecosystem for national advantage
In this special pre-Forum episode of Tech Transfer Talk, NIPF Co-Patrons Catherine Livingstone AC and David Thodey AO share thoughtful and timely reflections on the opportunities before us. Catherine reminds us that ‘we have no excuse now not to think deeply and long-term—innovation is not an optional accessory.’ David adds, ‘Stay the course. Grab the opportunity, make a difference and give it a go.’
Their conversation is a call to action: to translate our strengths in science, research and technology into the next decade of national prosperity—through collaboration, experimentation and execution. We explore the notion of moving the focus from innovation to experimentation and establishing a culture within government and industry that encourages experimentation to drive the productivity gains being sought throughout the private and public sectors.
With political stability providing a rare window for long-term planning and the outcomes of the Strategic Examination of R&D soon to be known, our conversations will focus on how we harness this moment to turn ideas into impact—aligning education, research, business R&D and policy to drive national advantage.
Transcript
CB: Hello everyone, and welcome to Tech Transfer Talk, a special National Innovation Policy Forum prequel edition. Quite a mouthful, I hasten to add. Uh, joining me today are David Thodey and Catherine Livingston, the patrons of the National Innovation Policy Forum. Welcome to you both, David and Catherine.
CL: Thanks, Cameron.
DT: Thanks, Cameron.
CB: It’s great to have you both back, uh, collectively. And we’re coming into a very important meeting next week. Lots of activity and discussion around innovation, productivity. The SERD is on its way. For those listening, it’s an acronym that I’m sure most of you are familiar with. But importantly, since last year, the political landscape is also changed as well. We entered last year’s policy forum with a fair bit of uncertainty with an election coming, and suddenly we find ourselves with a government that has quite a notable majority in the lower house, a sense of stability and a feeling that there are at least two full terms ahead with the current government. And the challenge now is, how do we use this window to convert all of the talk of productivity and innovation into the prosperity that we all seek and the improvements-social, economic and environment that we all yearn for? You’ve had a lot of time thinking about these questions individually and together over the years. Catherine, you’ve said recently that Australia needs to take a little control of its preferred future. Now that we have this political stability, what does that future look like? Because we’ve got a bit of a window to do some long-term planning.
CL: Well, I think Cameron, what it looks like is, it’s time we actually grasped the nettle or, you know, undertook the hard yards. So, we have no excuse now not to think deeply and long-term because we can see that political stability ahead. We also have no excuse because innovation really matters now, more than ever. In terms of prosperity, it’s not an optional accessory. So, there’s a huge amount of responsibility on those who do think about it to be able to capture not just the imagination, but the, the imperative of what it is we have to do and use this opportunity, really use it.
DT: Yeah. I mean, I just really agree with that. I think it is a unique opportunity we have. We do have, you know, a more stable political environment. But that’s not enough. It’s got to be us and we’ve got to step in, as Catherine said. And I think that’s why the, you know, the thematic of this conference around harnessing the ecosystem is we’ve got to grab it. And from my perspective, and I’m interested to hear Catherine’s perspective, but, you know, that technology innovation is underpinning so much change at the moment. And I’m not just saying AI because I think it’s broader than AI. It’s a, it’s a technology’s touching research. It’s sort of driving industry change, etc. So, I think that’s what we need to grasp and use that incredible capability we have across our wider community to lean into this. Yeah. So, I really agree.
CB: Yeah. And David, it’s interesting talking of that grasping, if one thinks about this from a board perspective momentarily and from, from a business perspective, this stability or political stability we’re envisaging for the next few years, what does that create in terms of opportunity for boards to now lean into and seize the neetle that Catherine’s just referred to?
DT: I mean, well, you know, businesses are no different to anyone in life. I mean, we look for, you know, stability. You know, we look for some degree of regulatory certainty, in terms of, because we make big decisions around investment and they’re long-term investments. And, and we look for that surety and you know, we look to reduce risk. So, sovereign risk is a critical thing you look at in a nation. And that’s why I think Australia has a unique opportunity, to be an opportun…a country that creates an environment that attracts investment, attracts, you know, the brightest and the best to come here. And I just encourage government and ourselves to do that because that creates enormous prosperity and improvement in people’s living standards. And, you know, yeah, we’ve got a productivity challenge, but I think it’s addressable with good investment and, you know, alignment, I don’t know. Catherine, what do you think?
CL: Well, well, I’d pick up on the risk word. Um, and not in the, um, you know, perhaps the negative sense of the sovereign risk, but then turn that around to our ability to take risk, which, as you point out, involves business investing, taking long-term decisions.
DT: Yeah.
CL: Then back on the policy makers, they have to back us taking that risk. And that, that has implications for policy settings you know, including regulatory settings. Settings that take risk or make risk difficult to take are unhelpful.
DT: And of course, with that, it’s when there’s too much change in that environment. And so, you go back to stability. I mean, I personally think the role of government is create these conducive environments to allow business to get on and do what they need to do. And I mean, that where the people who employ and, you know, drive, change, etc. So, I think that the more that we can have governments and policymakers thinking in that light, I think the better, because then we will get on and put capital at risk and hopefully drive value creation going forward.
CB: Part of that signalling from government is around that convening power as well, and the ability to draw people around, and to borrow a phrase I think you used recently with me, Catherine, was investable propositions. So, when we look towards governments convening power at last year’s Innovation Policy Forum, we talked about the role of of procurement, a much more, perhaps transactional way of viewing it. But how do we see governments convening power over the next three, you know, a couple of terms, 3 to 6 years. How can governments step in and convene to create the certainty or create conducive investment environments?
CL: Shall I jump in on that one…
CB: Please do, Catherine. Yeah. Please.
CL: I think it’s it’s convening power, not, um, not intervening power. And there’s a big difference. So…and, Cameron, you’ve heard me argue about we need a business model for the country.
CB: Yes.
CL: So, how can government use its convening power so that between business and the community and the research sector, how can we think about that, think through that, and that, that really could take a couple of years. So, using that convening power to work through all of that. Now I do have to say government coming in and using its intervening power. Um, and I, I do say that government putting money on the table is, um, is, is a very short-term strategy and…
CB: Interesting.
CL: …and runs the risk of not getting the return on investment that they might expect. And, and that’s a, that’s a generalisation. But…um, some of these big policy envelopes that are all about actually disbursing money.
CB: So, my inference there, Catherine, is things like the National Reconstruction Fund and the Future Made in Australia could be seen as intervening, in contrast to being convening in terms of that money being invested.
CL: Well, I think so, because they don’t have any strategic framework around them, any long-term strategic framework. So, the risk is they’re just cherry picking and then they are reactive rather than proactive in terms of Australia’s future.
DT: Hmm. ..
CL: And I mean, that’s a, that’s a, I know that’s being very critical of those two policy envelopes…
CB: Right, yeah.
CL: …I really believe that.
DT: I mean, I think they have the danger, don’t they, Catherine, of doing that. But I mean, coming back to convening power. I mean, I really agree with Catherine. I think the country does need its business model. And, and there’s no, there’s no right answer. But getting some, you know, shape to that is really important. I think Catherine has been really, you know, uh, articulate in expressing that. I do think that it works both at that national level but also at the micro level. I mean, Catherine and I have been involved in Tech Central here in Sydney. State government stepped in and said, ‘Yes, we’re going to help fund that’. And of course, governments should step in with funding where there’s what we’ll call market failure, where the market’s not making it happen. So, that’s where they should be. And and I think coming back to the, you know, National Reconstruction Fund or Future Made in Australia, I think Catherine is absolutely right. If it’s used for short-term technical initiatives, government is not the right place to do it. But if it’s about setting up long-term infrastructure or value creation that industry would not normally do, then there is a place for government to do it. But I, I think, Catherine, if I’m reading you correctly, it’s that short-termism or, you know, creating a few jobs in the next year or possibly or not, but it’s actually setting up a long-term, you know, environment where there can be true industry, economic growth with innovation, then I think that’s it can be beneficial.
CL: That’s right. Where it’s, um, investment that benefits a larger group; whether it’s a particular sector or a particular geography, you know, when a large geography. But when it’s on individual organisations, um, you know, the, the, that they, they don’t endure and the money’s gone, is very high.
DT: Yeah. I mean, it’s hard enough to be a venture capitalist and make money, let alone government doing that. It’s just not in the DNA. And it’s very hard. And the probability of success is very, very low. I mean, you know, uh, so, it’s not appropriate for government to do that, but setting up long-term research, translation, etc.; that sort of environment that’s going to have a wide, you know, benefit, I think is is appropriate.
CL:Yeah, I mean, you just have to look at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund.
CB: Yeah, yeah. So, so, is six years deemed long enough? I mean we’re talking about two terms, or speculated as we opened, that two terms would give us six years of stability. Uh, six, six years I would consider is not particularly long. In terms of policy and business and return on investment for substantial infrastructure. So, should we be grateful that we’ve got the prospect of six years, rather than worrying that six years is not long enough?
DT: I’ll take six years and bank it straight away.
CB: Right.
DT: Well I…It’s decadal. I mean, this is, I think this is what Catherine is referring to. We need, you know, long-term, you know, national aspiration of which we can take, you know, decisions. And that’s what we need. And, and we can align around.
CB: Yeah, okay. So, we’ll take the six years…
DT: Yeah, we’ll take that…
CB: …and then we’ll take, take the glass is half full, okay. So, in that context then we are waiting with somewhat bated breath around what comes from the strategic examination of R&D, commonly known as SERD. So, what are your thoughts or aspirations as we’re a little bit closer to that moment at this point, particularly coming into a National Innovation Policy Forum where the outcomes of SERD are going to be, I think, quite instructive as to where the government’s thinking is at the moment?
CL: Well, um, so, I suppose I would say it’s, it’s very helpful, in the sense of, uh, you know, a full strategic review across the whole domain, um, involved in research. And no doubt there’ll be recommendations for, um, improvement. And I use the word improvement. I am getting very frustrated with the word reform, um, being used on every occasion, when mostly it’s just change. And in some cases it’s, um, unhelpful change. So, but leaving that aside. So, hopefully there will be recommendations for improvement that strengthen the R&D, the research system, and make it future-facing and, um, more, more amenable to value creation in the future. And that’s long-term value creation. Now, what I worry about, is that there must be, when there are these recommended improvements, there has to be a period of transition from wherever we are to wherever it’s recommended that we be. Because of this long-term investment cycle when you come to research. So, that, that, to me is going to be the thing that I’ll be looking for, to see that, that, that concept of, of, uh, thoughtful transition from one state to another state is there.
CB: Yep. Yeah, yeah. David?
DT: Yeah. Look, I mean, again, I’m very aligned with Catherine. I mean, I, I’m appreciative of any report on, you know, research and development and how we move forward. And I think they, from the initial reports I’ve read, I think they’re heading in the right direction. Um, I mean, look, the critical thing, I mean, yes, we’ve got to support the research ecosystem. We’ve got to keep being future looking. We want to keep driving translation. You know, we’ve always got opportunity to do that better. I mean, look, there’s a bigger question around industry investment and R&D, um, and the, uh, tax credits. I mean, I think there’s probably an opportunity to maybe tidy it up a bit. But, you know, again, we’re not looking for wholesale change. It’s about execution. I mean, you know, I’m old school. You know, it’s 10% strategy, 90% execution. And, and we need to stay the course and get on with it. It’s the constant changing that just gets in the way. And, and I for one am more, you know, willing to lend my hand to trying things and getting it done rather than more constant policy reform.
CB: Yeah.
DT: Um, so that’s why I think, you know, I really like where Jane’s come from, you know, driving, you know, the harnessing this ecosystem, making it work. That’s what business is about. You know, I wish it was all strategy, but it’s mostly hard work, isn’t it?
CB: Yeah, yeah. So, so, it’s interesting in that, David, to take that idea of, uh, it’s about execution and that’s where most of the energy should go. Um, I’d contend that the culture that we have doesn’t lend itself towards, uh, executing and sitting comfortably when it goes wrong. Um, so, that, that then leads us into a, into a difficult moment, I think, in the Australian innovation system around sitting with the discomfort of trying things, learning fast, moving on. So,there’s a reconciliation there, I think, David, that you need to work through. I don’t have the magic tablet for that. But in your experience, how can we sit better with that, I guess, dissonance that we live with?
DT: Well, there’s no question we can be better at it. You know, Cam, I mean, I, and look, the only way I know how to lean into that is keep going. Give it a go.
CB: Yeah.
DT: And, yeah, look, there’s always going to be the critics and the, you know, people who are going to try to pull down. But look, you know, I, I’m, I’m personally constantly amazed at the, you know, talent and the flexibility of the incredible people in this country. And I’m a great believer. I mean, we just need to, in a way, get out of the way and encourage and be supportive. And every day I meet great researchers. I meet entrepreneurs who are giving a go, great scientists, medical researchers, who are just changing the world. So…
CB: Yep…
DT:…let’s celebrate that. Give them a gift.
CB: Indeed…
DT: And yes, I’m you know, we have a bit of a characteristic of being a bit of a naysayer, but hey, I’m not going to believe that anymore. I’m going for it, you know?
CB: No, no, no. Fantastic. Catherine, I suspect you’re on board with those thoughts.
CL: Yes. I mean, if you talk about the culture and innovation, I think really one word which comes to mind is experimentation. So, actually give people the permission to experiment. And I would say this is the same at, um, large corporations and boards of large corporations, um, working on strategy. If, if the management team is not experimenting, not with the whole business model, but but, uh, to some extent, if they’re not running experiments, they’re not necessarily learning. And if you talk to a scientist, they will learn more from the experiment that doesn’t work than the experiment that does.
CB: Yeah.
CL: Maybe it’s rather than saying, ‘We want to foster a culture of risk taking and innovation’; if we get to the more practical, what does that mean? It means run some experiments.
CB: Hmm, yeah. Nice contrast. A culture of experimentation. I think that’s an interesting reframing, Catherine. Personally, I think that generating that culture of experimentation, both in the boards and private sector, but very much in government, is an equally important thing. What would concern me personally is that government starts to try things, then the nay-saying begins and government loses its desire to keep experimenting. They sort of go small again, and that’s not what we need at this point.
CL: But if they’re experimenting in conjunction with business, Australian business, then, and we’ve had the sort of conversation about, um, strategic procurement and, um, using that as a way to, to drive innovation. So, if that is experimenting with business, um, then I think that’s seen positively because the, the constant cry which we’ve had in previous, um, NIPF forums is that businesses can’t get that beacon customer in Australia to run experiments, to take the prototype through, to finished product.
DT: Just to speak a little bit on the positive for the public service.
CB: Yeah.
DT: I’ve got to say I’ve been really impressed with some of the work coming out of Services Australia, Defence Industries. I mean, there is some real shining lights and a willingness to give it a go. I think the the critical thing which Catherine is alluding to is staying the course, you know, continue on, find it and let’s let’s celebrate it going forward. And I, I think there’s some wonderful initiatives coming out of the APS. I mean, and even at New South Wales Government level, look at, you know, Service New South Wales, the service app, and, you know, some of the, you know, in the healthcare industry about, you know, the um, I mean, even though I mean, I do use, you know, my little digital wallet and, you know. And it works, you know, it does work. And we should not, we should celebrate it. And by the way, there’s not many countries in the world that have got to where we’ve got to. Our tax, our tax revenue collection, which we don’t always like, talking about, is one of the most efficient revenue collectors in the world. So, I think…
CL: Is that a good thing, David?
DT: No, I’m not sure which side, but it…I mean, I get to see it through Xero. I mean, and even during Covid, when we’re able to do single touch payroll, we were able to get that money out faster than any other, um, government in the world. So, look, I mean, I’m just looking for the positives and look…
CB: Yeah.
DT: I know we can improve and, but there are some great shining lights, so…but we, but I do think there is opportunity for greater public-private partnership. I know, I know it’s always a vexed question. And, but I think to Catherine’s point, I think government more they can look for supporting Australian businesses, the better. Yeah.
CB: Yeah. I think, David, like you, there are an extraordinary number of success stories out there. We aren’t particularly good nationally at sharing those stories and telling them. I think that’s the, the underlying challenge there. But, but Catherine, to your point around government and business and, David, your point around public-private partnerships, there’s a translation story that sits underneath all of that, where the innovation gets to a point. How do we then get government or indeed industry and and both ideally staying the course of translation? Are there markets that can be formed here that can be serviced but through these, through Australian innovation? That’s not to say that we shouldn’t continue to translate offshore, but how do we get that market forming momentum domestically so that these opportunities can be further nurtured locally as they start to broaden their horizons around the world? I’ll throw that one to you, David, to start with if I can.
DT: Okay, well, of course, you know, we’ve got to do more translation. I’ve sort of moved from the word ‘translation’ to more ‘impact’. You know, I, I think, um, I think the more we can think about the impact of our research on a particular need in society, environment, social, economic, I think it gives a greater impetus to the change. And, and by definition, if you’re solving a, or making an impact in an area, in today’s world that has global applicability, often—not always, but, but often and I, so, I think it’s this question of impact, of creating value and having a global perspective that I think inherently creates value. It’s hard to sort of start at the value translation in unless you know what you’re going to do. And, and so the more that we can think in those terms, I mean, and, and I do think in our research community, I think we need to look, we obviously need to do pure research. But that sort of impact driven research, I mean, even when you look at where quantum came from, quantum physics, I mean, I don’t think they knew when they started with quantum physics just what the impact it could be. But it’s sort of gone through into telecommunications, potentially into computing. So, you need that continuum and then it’s gone to impact. So, that’s where I would probably, you know, come from on that angle. I don’t know.
CB: Yeah, okay. Catherine?
CL: Well, I, I absolutely agree with the, that the notion of impact and having that impact in your mind. Um, I think if we’re talking government policy, it’s making sure that they understand that you don’t you don’t go from science to impact. You have to go through this translation. So, and then that’ll come back to the SERD issue and whether that is recognised in the sort of funding continuum. Um, but I, I do agree that sort of rebalancing overall research. I mean, when we’ve had generally an investigator-led, if we talk about universities, it’s been an investigator-led environment, and that’s fine, except that when you’ve got the cost of researchers is now much greater than it was. The speed of change is greater technologies, um, pervasive, as David says. And we’ve got a national imperative that we need to understand how we’re going to actually create enough value here to pay for the way of life we like. You know, impact it really does become non-negotiable at that point.
DT: Yeah.
CB: Yeah.
DT: Yeah. And that’s so true. And, and of course, there isn’t a simple answer here in that, because it’s not just money. Because you need to build this community, this ecosystem of, of industry, working with academics and working with public policymakers. And that’s where the value creation lies. And I mean, I mean, I, you know, you talk to a great researcher who’s got an idea. Look, the money’s part of it, but actually they’re looking for advice about how to productise, how to go to market, how to, how to structure, you know, uh, you know, that MVP (Minimum Viable Product). That’s, that value is enormous. And that’s what we often don’t have enough of, of people stepping in, working alongside and helping. And that’s, I mean, to me that’s the CRC model. I mean, that’s, you know, that’s what it was all about. So, that’s why I, you know, I think CRCs have been incredibly successful. I mean, not all of them, but, you know, overall it’s been a pretty good story.
CB: Yeah, indeed, indeed. And I think, you know, there are great examples of the translation opportunity and challenge, uh, it is, so many other elements need to come together through that translation phase, whether it’s the advice you were speaking to there, David, and Catherine, you mentioned, recently to me that, um, we need to have sectors that are seeking problems, that are seeking problems to solve. Um, that, that industry-led rather than investigator-led approach also, I think, drives the translation and the scaling of things like quantum, uh, and biotechnology, and a whole range of other sciences. And indeed, it was interesting, I, like many others, have just recently read Abundance, which was the book de jour or book d’annee, that depends on where you stand on that. And what was fascinating for me in that book was a fair chunk of it was around the translation challenge. Uh, and, and here we are talking and so, on both sides of the Pacific, the challenge is similar in translation. The scale, of course, in the United States is, is somewhat larger as a consequence of its economy. But in principle, we’re wrestling with similar sorts of challenges. Which brings me straight back to the so what policy settings do we need to drive that translation piece along? What is it that, um, we need to do more of here, do you think, to stimulate the translation phase? Um, you know, we have the CRC program; what else do we need?
DT: I mean. I mean, look, anything that brings researchers together with industry will, gets my vote. Um, because that, that’s where it happens. And, and it’s that rubbing together. It’s a bit uncomfortable. It’s not always easy. It’s a bit messy. And, but that’s what the US does so well, you know, that’s why they are what they are, in terms of both health innovation, you know, engineering, technology innovation. It’s in that sort of messy process of, and they move far more fluidly between academia, government and industry. We just don’t do enough of it. And so, we just got to keep at it. Um…
CB: Yeah.
DT: …don’t give up.
CB: Yeah.
DT: I don’t know, Catherine, what do you reckon?
CL: Well, I think the point about more and more creating the multidisciplinary environment, and that’s not just within the research sector. It’s across across business as well.
CB: Yeah.
CL: Um, which really comes back to, well, what are you trying to achieve as a country? And then, then work back to what types of people would it be helpful to get together? That’s the multidisciplinary side. And then under that is, you know, researchers, business, government, etcetera.
CB: Yeah.
CL: Um, but to break down the silos, it’s not just about research. It’s not just about government. It’s not just about business. And that’s why I say, and and I’ve said, I think we’ve been underselling the potential by talking about the innovation system because the economy is the innovation system. It’s the whole system.
CB: Mhm.
DT: Mhm.
CL: And, and that’s where we don’t want policymakers thinking, well there’s an innovation system off to the side and…
DT: Right.
CB: Yeah.
CL: I mean, I may or may not feed it. Um, if I’ve got some extra money I will. Um, it’s not how it works; it IS the economy.
CB: It is putting it at the centre.
CL: Well, it is.
CB: It is the centre. Yes, yes.
CL: Yep.
DT: It’s very hard to create value without change and doing something differently, you know, or creating something brilliant. I mean, that’s inherently an innovation invention.
CB: Yeah, yeah. As we set sail for the Innovation Policy Forum next Monday, some final thoughts for today to set people’s minds racing for when we all convene early next week. And David, I’ll invite you to go first.
DT: Okay, I’ll give it a go. Look, I think be encouraged. Stay the course. Um, you know, it’s, it continues to be an incredible opportunity for this country. We do some wonderful things, and these sorts of times, coming together are so important. So, grab the opportunity, make a difference and give it a go, would be my recommendation.
CB: Okay. The call to arms. Catherine, your, your closing thoughts today.
CL: So, I would say let’s just think about the next ten years.
CB: Yep.
CL: And what, what future do we want to design for the country? And then work back to, well, ‘What are we good at? Where are we going to create value?’ Then come back to, ‘So, what do we have to do now to do that? And as you say, we hopefully have six years of stability?
CB: Yep.
CL: Um, but that six years must deliver the ten-year view and the prosperity that we need.
CB: Yeah.
CL: And we can’t just hope it’s going to happen.
CB: Hope is not a strategy.
DT: Hope is not a strategy.
CB: Yeah. Fantastic. So, I think that, David, your, your call to arms and Catherine, you’re sort of getting into the ‘Let’s figure out what we have to do over the next six years to deliver on that’, I think a great starting point for next Monday. Thank you both very much for joining us today. And for those listening, we look forward to seeing most, if not all of you, on Monday in Canberra for the National Innovation Policy Forum in 2025. Thanks very much.